This is a silly argument Linus and doesn't help you to make your case. It does not become you to start erecting straw men.

Scripture and Tradition clearly put presbyters under obedience to their bishops. No such clear distinction is made regarding bishops to bishops.

John

It is not "silly" relative to the argument that disobedience proves lack of authority. If one asserts that instances of disobedience prove that the one disobeyed had no authority, then Arius's disobedience to St. Alexander proves that Alexander had no authority.

It can be argued very well that Scripture and Tradition give the bishops of Rome more than merely honorific authority.

But you know what?

I am tired of arguing this issue.

All I have claimed is that the bishops of Rome held more than an honorific authority.

That is abundantly clear to any unbiased reader of of history.

Yet each time I have asserted that - a pretty innocuous thing to assert - I get jumped on by most of my Orthodox brethren, who then proceed to open fire on me with all of their standard anti-RCC arguments, all gleaned from painstaking scholarship: i.e., reading Whelton's book and maybe one or two others.

What they fail to understand is that I am NOT RCC, nor have I argued for the authority of the modern papacy, its supposed infallibility, yada-yada-yada.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

1) You should perhaps refrain from putting words in my mouth that I did not utter (“How does Canon 28 or any of what you are calling "praxis" refute the idea that the bishops of Rome held more than a mere primacy of honor”). My view of the primacy that the Roman Catholic Papacy held is more akin to the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th through 15th centuries, rather than that of modern polemicists.

Please show how I put words in your mouth.

We were not discussing the "Roman Catholic Papacy" of the 12th - 15th centuries any more than we were discussing The Chessmen of Mars.

The Fathers of the early Catholic Church seemed to believe the bishops of Rome held more than a merely honorific authority.

Quote

gbmtmas: 2) I have no idea what your view of the Roman Papacy is. After having read all of this thread, it seems that you don’t agree with some of the conclusions of “Orthodox anti-RCC polemicists”, while at the same time you seem to have indicated that the current Roman Catholic claims regarding their Papacy are perhaps exaggerated. Yet, in this entire thread, I have not seen your view of the Roman Catholic Papacy articulated - except in a context of what you don’t believe. Perhaps you could share what, precisely you believe regarding the Roman Catholic Papacy, it’s relation to St. Peter, your understanding of primacy, and perhaps what you agree/disagree with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

The RC papacy has gone too far in its claims.

It had no right to introduce innovations like the filioque into the Creed without benefit of an ecumenical council.

My arguments have not been intended to endorse the modern RCC papacy.

I thought I made that clear.

Apparently all one has to do around here to produce a knee-jerk reaction is to use the word "pope" in anything other than a negative sense.

If I am a papist, then all of you are Protestants.

I am running out of time, so I will not be able to respond to your entire post right now.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2004, 09:08:54 AM by Linus7 »

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Are you saying that the introduction of the filioque would have been alright if the Pope had done it at an ecumenical council?

And as I have mentioned before, I am not anti-RCC. I am even in agreement that the Pope of Rome had something more than a mere primacy of honour. I have never read any anti-RCC books since I became Orthodox (or whatever you consider me) and in fact the only critical material I have recently read has all been written Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops in council.

Yet again I have no idea what you are so strenuosly arguing for, save that everyone else here is wrong.

In what way has the RC papacy gone too far? How far is it legitimate for it to have gone?

Are you saying that the introduction of the filioque would have been alright if the Pope had done it at an ecumenical council?

And as I have mentioned before, I am not anti-RCC. I am even in agreement that the Pope of Rome had something more than a mere primacy of honour. I have never read any anti-RCC books since I became Orthodox (or whatever you consider me) and in fact the only critical material I have recently read has all been written Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops in council.

Yet again I have no idea what you are so strenuosly arguing for, save that everyone else here is wrong.

In what way has the RC papacy gone too far? How far is it legitimate for it to have gone?

No, I am not saying the filioque would be right if the Pope introduced it with the approval of a supposedly ecumenical council. I was simply saying - as you knew quite well - that no bishop has the right to add anything to the Creed without benefit of an ecumenical council.

Are you saying it is possible for a truly ecumenical council to err in faith and/or morals?

What I consider you is of little importance. I don't even know you.

I don't think I am "strenuously arguing" at all. I don't have time for strenuous arguments on the internet. Any arguments I have presented here have been done so at my leisure, as time allows; in other words, with both hands tied behind my back.

I never said everyone else is wrong. I merely responded to counter arguments. The fact that I believe that those who disagree with me on this issue are wrong is not unusual, is it? Don't most normal people believe that those who disagree with them are wrong? If I found the opposing arguments convincing, I would change my point of view.

If you believe the early popes had "something more than a mere primacy of honour" - and that is all I have ever asserted - then we actually agree.

And, since that is all I have ever asserted, that is why I have been amazed at your reaction and the reactions of others.

I think I said already how the modern papacy has gone too far.

How far is it legitimate for the papacy to have gone?

I think it easier to say what the popes should not have done rather than to attempt to define all they can do. They should not have introduced any innovations in doctrine. Their authority never extended that far.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2004, 11:19:40 AM by Linus7 »

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

When you keep emphasizing on this "primacy of honor" business (when responding to statements I have made), when I, in fact, have not even mentioned a "primacy of honor."

Quote

We were not discussing the "Roman Catholic Papacy" of the 12th - 15th centuries any more than we were discussing The Chessmen of Mars.

I would highly recommend that you re-read my original statement. I wrote:

My view of the primacy that the Roman Catholic Papacy held is more akin to the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th through 15th centuries, rather than that of modern polemicists.

As you can see Linus7, the subject of my original statement is the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th through 15th centuries--not the Roman Catholic Papacy of that time. I believe that a discussion of the Orthodox Fathers' views of that time is relevant--hence, I find your response perplexing. Also, as a sidenote: I say "Roman Catholic Papacy" to distinguish from "Alexandrian Papacy" (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian accord this title to their respective Alexandrian hierarchs). As you know, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church is not the only one who claims, or has been legitimately accorded the title of "Pope" in Church history.

Quote

The Fathers of the early Catholic Church seemed to believe the bishops of Rome held more than a merely honorific authority.The RC papacy has gone too far in its claims.

Again, as before, I have asked you to elaborate on your particular view of the early Church's view of the Roman Papacy. I would be particularly interested in what you mean by this ever-ubiquitous "primacy of honor" or "honorific authority" that you keep using. I cannot respond to that which is not defined. We may agree. We may not agree; however, that remains to be seen until more clarity is apparent. Before any good discussion can ensue, each party must define its terminology, since we may associate different meanings/backgrounds/contexts to the exact same terminology.

Quote

It had no right to introduce innovations like the filioque into the Creed without benefit of an ecumenical council.

Quote

My arguments have not been intended to endorse the modern RCC papacy. I thought I made that clear. Apparently all one has to do around here to produce a knee-jerk reaction is to use the word "pope" in anything other than a negative sense.

Yes. You made that abundantly clear. However, your response to me indicates that you have not read my response to you--which did not accuse or infer that you were a defender of Roman Catholicism's view of their Papacy. Let me provide you with my original response in case you overlooked it:

I have no idea what your view of the Roman Papacy is. After having read all of this thread, it seems that you don’t agree with some of the conclusions of “Orthodox anti-RCC polemicists”, while at the same time you seem to have indicated that the current Roman Catholic claims regarding their Papacy are perhaps exaggerated. Yet, in this entire thread, I have not seen your view of the Roman Catholic Papacy articulated - except in a context of what you don’t believe. Perhaps you could share what, precisely you believe regarding the Roman Catholic Papacy, it’s relation to St. Peter, your understanding of primacy, and perhaps what you agree/disagree with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Now, how did my original statement merit your loaded response?

Quote

If I am a papist, then all of you are Protestants. I am running out of time, so I will not be able to respond to your entire post right now.

After having read your response, it has become apparent that now may not be the time for a discussion on this topic--given the amount of volatile energy "in the air." However, earlier, when I recommended reading scholarly works rather than polemical works--I meant it. If you're interested, here is a list of some relevant books (both pro- and con) that may help provide you with a knowledge base (if all you've read are polemics).

[Is one of the main arguments regarding the split between East and West based on the claim that Rome was given primacy because it was the capitol city of the Empire? So that when Constantinople became the capitol the Patriarch of Constantinople should have the primacy?Peace,Polycarp]

A simple enough question to ask. Why is it that the Papacy (the Roman one) engenders such volatility?

But just a reality check..... Let's all remember that this is just an internet discusssion forum. We all have our differing views and are entitled to them no matter how much others think they are wrong. All these issues were argued out by much more learned and holier people than any of us. So could we all be more charitable and lets keep a sense of humor about all this as well, please.

Now back to the topic..............You're all wrong. Rome has spoken the matter is finished!!!

Thanks for that most excellent reading list. I shall certainly try to find some of these volumes, they look very stimulating.

Are you in a position to offer reading lists on other topics which may interest me.

Peter Theodore

Good Evening Peter,

What topics would you perhaps be interested in? I've done some study on certain limited topics--but there's a whole sea of stuff I haven't even scratched the surface. Please let me know what you are interested in, and I will see if I can make any recommendations.

gbtmtmas: When you keep emphasizing on this "primacy of honor" business (when responding to statements I have made), when I, in fact, have not even mentioned a "primacy of honor."I would highly recommend that you re-read my original statement.

I still do not believe I put words in your mouth. But suit yourself.

Quote

gbmtmas: I wrote:

My view of the primacy that the Roman Catholic Papacy held is more akin to the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th through 15th centuries, rather than that of modern polemicists.

As you can see Linus7, the subject of my original statement is the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th through 15th centuries--not the Roman Catholic Papacy of that time. I believe that a discussion of the Orthodox Fathers' views of that time is relevant--hence, I find your response perplexing.

I would venture to say that much of what the Orthodox Fathers of the 12th - 15th centuries thought of the papacy was conditioned by the papacy as they knew it - in their own lifetimes.

How better to understand the role of the papacy in the early Church: through those Fathers (including some who were popes) who were part of the early Church, or through Fathers of the Middle Ages, removed by centuries from the subject in question?

Quote

gbmtmas: Also, as a sidenote: I say "Roman Catholic Papacy" to distinguish from "Alexandrian Papacy" (both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian accord this title to their respective Alexandrian hierarchs). As you know, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church is not the only one who claims, or has been legitimately accorded the title of "Pope" in Church history.

If you say that is why you so labeled it, I must accept it. It seemed to me that you were using "Roman Catholic" as a perjorative modifier of "Papacy" in order to discredit it.

The word Papacy would have been sufficient, since to most people it is the Pope of Rome that comes to mind when that word is used.

Lesser-knowns require modifiers to correctly identify them.

Quote

gbmtmas: Again, as before, I have asked you to elaborate on your particular view of the early Church's view of the Roman Papacy. I would be particularly interested in what you mean by this ever-ubiquitous "primacy of honor" or "honorific authority" that you keep using.

As I understand honorific primacy as it is used regarding the bishops of Rome, it means being accorded the first place of honor (e.g., the chief seat at councils, etc.) but no actual executive authority or jurisidiction beyond the Roman diocese itself.

An honorary "head of the Church" is certainly not the same thing as a real head of the Church.

Quote

gbtmas: I cannot respond to that which is not defined. We may agree. We may not agree; however, that remains to be seen until more clarity is apparent. Before any good discussion can ensue, each party must define its terminology, since we may associate different meanings/backgrounds/contexts to the exact same terminology.Yes. You made that abundantly clear. However, your response to me indicates that you have not read my response to you--which did not accuse or infer that you were a defender of Roman Catholicism's view of their Papacy.

Sure it did.

You provided arguments that are used to attack papal infallibility (the "waffling" of Vigilius, etc.).

Such arguments have little or no bearing on what I wrote.

Quote

gbmtmas: Let me provide you with my original response in case you overlooked it:

I have no idea what your view of the Roman Papacy is. After having read all of this thread, it seems that you don’t agree with some of the conclusions of “Orthodox anti-RCC polemicists”, while at the same time you seem to have indicated that the current Roman Catholic claims regarding their Papacy are perhaps exaggerated. Yet, in this entire thread, I have not seen your view of the Roman Catholic Papacy articulated - except in a context of what you don’t believe. Perhaps you could share what, precisely you believe regarding the Roman Catholic Papacy, it’s relation to St. Peter, your understanding of primacy, and perhaps what you agree/disagree with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

I read it the first time.

I was not trying to articulate a view of the "Roman Catholic Papacy." I was discussing the Catholic Papacy or rather the primacy of the pre-Schism bishops of Rome.

"Roman Catholic" is a post-Schism identifier that is not relevant to our discussion. There was no Roman Catholic Church during the period we are discussing, just as there was no Eastern Orthodox Church.

No one was confused and thought we were talking about the Coptic Pope.

Original statement or condescending tone (also present in your last post - the one I'm presently quoting )?

Quote

gbmtmas: After having read your response, it has become apparent that now may not be the time for a discussion on this topic--given the amount of volatile energy "in the air."

You are quite right.

Besides that, I don't have the free time to do this topic justice.

Quote

gbmtmas: However, earlier, when I recommended reading scholarly works rather than polemical works--I meant it. If you're interested, here is a list of some relevant books (both pro- and con) that may help provide you with a knowledge base (if all you've read are polemics).